Agenda item

In attendance for this item:

Michael Hudson, Chief Financial Officer

Steph Simcox, Head of Finance

Kerry McCrossan, Assistant Director of Adult Social Care

Adrian Hardman, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care

As part of the Budget scrutiny process, the Panel considered the draft 2022-23 budget for areas within its remit. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) highlighted the main points to note from the draft budget and the medium-term financial plan including:

·      The 2022/23 Draft Budget report to Cabinet on 6 January set out the proposed budget, and the discussion with this Scrutiny Panel formed part of broader engagement, with feedback from Scrutiny due to be discussed by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board on 26 January.

·      The overall net Council budget for 2022-23 was £373.2m, compared to the gross budget for 2021-22 of £349.7m.

·      The most significant pressures on the budget included £15.7m for People Services, £10.3m for pay and contract inflation and £5.9m (£7.9m gross) for Worcestershire Children First (WCF) relating to social care.

·      Several Government grants had been received for 2022-23 including a further £6.1m in recognition of the pressures in Adults and Children’s social care, which totalled £12.6m in additional grant funding.

·      The final settlement from the Government was expected in early February.

·      There remained an efficiencies programme of £8.1m, of which around £3m had already been identified and for the remainder of the efficiencies, Directorates would look at general good housekeeping of budgets for example staff travel expenses.

·      The Panel received a graph benchmarking Council Tax for County Councils in 2021-22 (without Fire). The Panel noted that Worcestershire’s average Council Tax (£1,344) was at a lower level than the average, but highlighted the graph was difficult to breakdown in terms of area.

·      An increase in Council Tax of 3.94% was proposed. This comprised 2% ring-fenced for adult social care services, carried forward from 2021/22 plus a further 1% Adult Social care Levy for 2022/23 in order to contribute to existing cost pressures due to Worcestershire’s ageing population - together with 0.94% increase to provide financial support to continue to fund investments in areas highlighted by the public as important.

·      Worcestershire’s Council Tax was likely to remain in the lower quartile when compared with comparable councils.

·      The Council’s reserves were assessed by the CFO as adequate.

The Head of Finance drew the Panel’s attention to the position for Adult Social Care. The £17.1m pressures from demand and growth increases in Adult Care would be funded by the 3% Adult Social Care Council Tax Precept of £8.1m, the increase in the social care grant of £3.5m, the increase in the Improved Better Care Fund income of £0.5m and the Market Sustainability and Fair Cost of Care Fund of £1.6m. Investment in Adult Social Care resulted from detailed assessments carried out in liaison with partners and providers, with staffing costs being a priority for providers.   The funding to be bridged was £3.4m and the potential for joint funding with health was being explored.

It was clarified that the People Directorate Service budget summary in the presentation included services from the communities element of the Directorate’s work,  which would be scrutinised by the Corporate and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

The Panel appreciated the clarity of the budget presentation which picked out the salient points of the budget report to Cabinet.

During the discussion, the following main points were noted:

·      In response to a query about the Council’s rationale for the apportionment of the Adult Social Care Levy which, when Government had announced had said could be spread across 2021-23, capped at 3%. The Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Adult Social Care explained that as a 2% increase in 2021/22 had not in fact been needed but in view of projected increased pressure on budgets further down the line, it was felt that the approach to opt for 1% in 2021/22 and a further 2% levy be applied for 2022/23, was the sensible approach. The Chief Financial Officer advised that nationally, there had been a 50/50 split between some Council’s taking the same approach as Worcestershire or taking 3% at the start of the period. 

·      The Panel discussed with the CMR and Council’s officers, the fact that a significant proportion of the Government’s settlement for adult social care was in the form of grants. It was understood that many grants had been renewed for several years because of the delays in the Government’s plans to reform adult social care funding, which was an unsettling situation when planning services. The Adult Social Care Reform White Paper had been published recently for Consultation, however the ensuing transition would be a key risk to local authorities.

·      The adequacy of the budget and whether there would be any savings incurred from increasing the use of IT and assistive technology when planning for individual care needs was discussed. Officers confirmed that in order to retain an individual’s independence, the Council would always consider low level technology early on in the process.  Officers also worked with health and district partners closely throughout the planning process. The CMR hoped that the increased use of technology would result in cost saving but thought that there were limitations. The increased role and cost benefit of assistive technology to support people’s independence and to complement the role of staff was added to the Panel’s Work Programme.

·      Responding to a query about cost pressures and the longer-term vision for Adult Services, the CMR advised that he was pretty confident in the demographic models available. He also felt an important point to note was that those funding their own care (self-funders) were the dominant players in the care market, and not the Council.

·      It was observed that any impact from the Integrated Care System development on budgets was not anticipated during the first year.

·      The CMR outlined that following the recent publication of the Adult Social Care Reform White Paper, which was broadly in step with the Council’s approach, the Council would be looking to update its 2018 Strategy and link with the new Corporate Plan. 

·      It was clarified that the Improved Better Care Fund (IBCF) was specifically for local authority use, whereas the BCF was allocated in liaison with clinical commissioning groups, although the aims of the funds were linked.

·      Comment was invited from the Healthwatch Worcestershire representative present (Simon Adams, Managing Director), who welcomed the focus on service users and appreciated the challenges at play. Use of technology required connectivity and he was aware this was also being worked on by the Council.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their contribution and explained that a summary of the panel’s main comments would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board on 26 January.